Observations on the May 10 Council Meeting
Two items this evening occasioned the kind of debate which is needed by a democracy. Such discussion clarifies issues and can lead to needed changes in policy and practice.
Staff Report item (o) involved a staff recommendation: “That Council support the re-allocation of $154,000 of UBCM Community Tourism Grant Funding to the purchase of the LED screen score clock for the Nanaimo Aquatic Centre.” The crux of the discussion was the extent to which grants received for one purpose can be used for another. As discussion proceeded, it appeared that the wording of the recommendation was faulty in that what was really being asked was permission to ask the UBCM whether this reallocation, which staff supports, was agreeable to them. It was also pointed out that the $154,000 was awarded to fund a study which was produced in-house. It was also pointed out that, as the $154,000 for the sign was already in the ordinary budget, a yes from the UBCM would make that money available for other purposes, though what these might be was not mentioned.
This item raises issues of how public funds flow and questions about the imputed legitimacy of a) the city applying for funds which are redundant and can be turned to other purposes and b) the legitimacy of the UBCM in giving out grants from public money which are superfluous to need. I suppose that we should be grateful for every dime we get from some other level of government, but aren’t all these levels plucking the same turkeys?
Staff Report item (n) is even more problematic and involves the award of a contract for about $5 million dollars over a period of five years to a company for waterworks supplies. This item has been the subject of a number of Council and FPCOW meetings in last few weeks. Two unsuccessful bidders have raised a number of questions about the bidding substance and process with regard to such questions as: the length of the contract which up until now has been open for bids annually (if any of these folks can see ahead five years, please notify my broker) ; about the fact that the winner is not a local Nanaimo business; about procedures in the bidding process which may have led to the mis-allocation of points in scoring the bids, etc. Staff reported that the city was estimated to save about $390,000 by the selection of the winning supplier over the five years of the project. I hesitate to comment on the reliability of this estimate without having more detail, but what I heard led me to have a number of questions about the figure. Given this situation where the results of the bidding exercise were known before coming to Council, they wisely requested an opinion from the city’s solicitors as to whether jeopardy could attach to the city if the current bids were all rejected in favour of a new bidding process. The opinion apparently came back that this might be the case. Council voted to proceed to approve the staff recommendation though, as one Councillor put it, noses had to be held.
But what I would like to know is this: What was the question put to the lawyers? Was it determined whether information released by those unauthorized to make promises on behalf of the city could put the City in legal jeopardy? Our bylaws state that any contract costing more than $250,000 must be approved by Council. This was obviously not done in this case (at least until tonight). What is our lawyers’ opinion about this situation? How could it be that jeopardy attached to information emanating from an unauthorized source? Councillor Sherry raised this point near the end of the debate when all seemed anxious to vote and get it over with. But this may have been the most critical question of all.
Ron Bolin
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
One recurring theme/excuse offered by city staff and city council when it comes to decisions: legal advice seems to carry a lot of weight. I also wondered what kind of lawyer advices that someone who is not authorized to make a $5million decision somehow binds the local taxpayer? More troubling was the willingness of council to ‘hold their nose’, why not stand up and question, what is questionable legal advice?
The same reason/excuse (legal council said the taxpayer could be exposed) was offered by the Mayor for the $500,000 parting gift given to Mr. Berry.
If the advice of any lawyer is final, what are all those courts and judges all about? Maybe the city should challenge some of these cases and see what comes of it. Perhaps Mr. Berry wasn’t really entitled to his gift after all.
The City of Nanaimo applied for funding for a study. They did the study (in house) so the funding should be applied to general revenue. Once the funds are in general revenue, then the City may use those funds for general revenue which would include a scoreboard already within the budget. Why would they have to notify The Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) when they completed the study for which they applied for funding?
Jim: You have hit the nail on the head concerning lawyers. Has there ever been a lawyer who would say, about any situation, that there was no chance of a law suit? It is my personal opinion that the unraveling of society is at least partly brought about by the fact that the sheer number or our laws and legal opinions have led to a system that is so complex, complicated and even internally inconsistent, that with enough money one can buy just about any opinion one wants -and only governments and corporations have that kind of money. Having said that, I agree with you that it is cowardly not to test the system now and again. Have we really turned the system over to the dollars?
W: You raise a good point. It depends on how value free you believe money to be. If I apply to the city for a grant for a specific purpose and then raise enough money to meet that purpose from other sources (which is, after all, the most desirable situation), should I return that money to the city or use it to pay off my credit card? It’s all in how you view the juggling of public funds. Should I request funds I do not need just in case I might need them? And if it turns out that I don’t need them, what should I do with them then?
Our Council gives away over $3 million (about 4% of out tax money) in grants and property tax exemptions each year. To what extent should we care about how the money is used?
Well Ron, the City did not raise the money from another source, they used their own employees to do the work that the grant was given for. If they had calculated the amount they paid those employees it was most likely greater (I have seen the wages city employees make) than the value it would have been if someone else had done it.